Julia was furious. In session, she retold the argument that she said, “ended it all!” She and her partner had been together for seven tumultuous years in which they alternated between times of peace and WWIII. Over the weekend Julia’s partner Emily had gone out with friends, stayed out all night and didn’t respond to text messages or phone calls. Emily said her phone was off and that she had gotten too drunk and stayed with at her friend’s house so as to not drive drunk. Julia wasn’t believing anything Emily said and told Emily to stay with her friend and not come home.
When Julia had wrote out her goals for therapy she wanted to learn to stop being so jealous and angry, stop yelling at her partner and getting so angry over “the little things.” The weekend fight certainly wasn’t moving her towards her goals.
What is anger?
Anger is a normal emotion like happy, sad, anxious and all the rest that us human beings create. Anger isn’t only an emotion of humans as animals also display anger. It is the activation of the central nervous system meant to protect ourselves and act on if needed to preserve.
Imagine that Julia was a “cavewoman” in the early human history and a predator jumped into her path. Within micro of a second, the brain may at first has us freeze and then immediately respond. This is the fight or flight. If the best chance of survival is to fight, our body responds with anger response – blood flow away from the brain and to the large muscles, blood pressure increases and adrenaline pumps through us. Cavewoman Julia has the appropriate physical and emotional reaction needed to deal with the predator.
This is helpful to fight off an attack but it isn’t very helpful when the perceived attack is from a loved one in which we hope to maintain a relationship.
Brain and Emotions
To understand anger along with all the emotions, it is important to understand where emotions come from. When something happens in our world, what happens next in a tenth of a second is a thought and the associated emotion. Then we act on that emotion.
I discuss this in a series of 3 minute Psychology videos of where our emotions come from. Click here to view.
In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy we use a model called the ABC’s of Emotion in which A stands for Aware (sometimes called the Activating Event), B for Belief (thoughts) and C for Consequences (how we felt emotionally and did as a result). Let’s say that it is Saturday night and you realize that you are holding the winning lottery ticket. We might think that the winning ticket means that you are happy as though the ticket is the cause of happiness. For that to be the case, all humans would have to react the same to the same things. That just isn’t true.
Let’s say that you are thinking, “Hey I won, my worries are over!” You would indeed feel happy. However, some other thoughts could lead to other emotions.
| Thought | Emotion |
| Oh no! What if everyone starts calling me wanting the money? | Anxiety |
| Oh crap! Now what? Now every loser family member is going to bug me day and night. | Anger |
| Hmmm, well this is interesting | Calm |
| I may be happy for a minute, but I’m going to lose it and be in a worst position then I am now. | Down |
| Now I can rub my success in the face of everyone who ever doubted me! Take that! | Spiteful |
Same winning lottery ticket but with a multitude of thoughts and thereby emotional responses.
What does this have to do with anger?
Although each of us are unique, we are all human beings and as such there are some “people patterns”. After all we don’t beat our chest and throw things, and grunt loudly when we are angry like gorillas or we don’t raise the hair on our hunches and growl like dogs or bow our backs and hiss like cats. We have certain patterns that result in angry human beings.
These people patterns are called common mental mistakes in CBT. The ones that tend to result in anger are:
- Irrational Should Statements directed outwards
- Irrational Labeling (objectifying)
- Confusing Need with Want
- Can’t Stand-itis
- Catastrophizing
- Blame
- Keeping Track or Counting Straws
- Confusing Choosing To with Having To
- Right to be angry
- Self righteous indignation
Irrational Should Statements directed outwards
Should is a very bad word! To me, I think that should is the ultimate in swear words. In CBT we refer to this as “shoulding all over yourself (or others)”. Read the following two sentences and decide how they seem to generate emotions:
| He shouldn’t talk to me like that. | I wish he wouldn’t talk to me like that. |
These sentences may look similar but very different emotional responses. The first is angry while the second isn’t so emotional that we can pinpoint as it seems rather calm or neutral. “Should” is a judgemental and critical commandment when we use it towards someone else.
The problem with the word “should” is that it is a commandment in opposition about a situation that has already happened. Think about the sentence “he shouldn’t talk to me like that.” Problem is, he has already talked to you in a manner you didn’t like and it is like yelling “stop” to our dog as it clears the block and disappears around the corner. It’s already happened.
The other problem is that it is a demand. For any parents of children or furry friends, we already know that we cannot control the actions of others. Yes, we can influence with a mix of negative and positive punishments and rewards, but it is a challenge to make a command and immediately the other person obeys.
Should used in another way is a statement of a “rule” that we have. We can have social rules and personal rules. It isn’t a problem to have rules that govern social or personal behavior. The problem comes when we think that by simply stating a rule we must all follow it rigidly and then think we have a right to force conformity of others even if we have stated the rule to them. The biggest problem comes when that “rule” isn’t stated and the one you are mad at has no idea that there was a rule to being with. This may sound like, “I shouldn’t have to tell my partner what I want, they should just know.”
Solving Shoulding
To stop shoulding all over yourself or others is to recognize how often you are shoulding and switch to “wish” or “prefer” for “should”. Once a client with this shoulding problem used a counting device to count every time that he used should. He was surprised that it was over 25 times per day. Then the simplest solution is to switch should with wish.
Does it matter? Yes! When we say something like, “I wish he wouldn’t talk to me like that,” then I can question then why does he speak to me like that? Is there something that I can do to discourage that? How important is this person to me? If it is a person at work, we can contact HR. Maybe if it isn’t something we can discourage we can reduce contact or remove this person from our lives. Maybe this person speaks badly in certain situations. Is there something that I can do differently that may change that reaction and does this person really matter to me?
And bottom line is how this person is speaking to me even matter in the grand scheme? In other words, does whatever this person say mean anything? Here is a little experiment. If someone calls you something and you think it matters because words have power, then I’m going to call you something. You have to become that thing. Ready? You are spider man! Spinning any webs yet?
What it comes down to is words have the power we assign them. If someone tends to call you names and objectify you as we will talk about next, it may be time to decide if keeping that relationship is important to you. And if that person remains in your life, remembering that the names aren’t you but a reflection of the other person’s mind.
Irrational Use of a Label (Objectifying)
From the time we are learning to speak, we learn to label things. This is very helpful when we are trying to communicate. Is it easier to say, hand me the cup,” or “hand me that ceramic vessel that is used to store hot and cold liquids”? However, the labels that we use when we are angry are something else.
Think back to the last time that you were angry with someone else. Did you say or think to yourself, “You, you love of my life, my best friend”? Very unlikely. Think back to a recent argument or when you angered yourself at someone. Where there names involved? Did you use swear words or assign negative attributes?
Think about a pen or maybe your coffee cup. Would you be terribly upset if you broke a common everyday item? We might get irritated that the pen we were using we broke as it may inconvenience us but generally we aren’t going to be overly upset about an everyday item. Now if it is something that we dislike strongly, we are certainly not going to be upset breaking it.
When we call someone a cuss word or use negative labels such as loser, stupid, idiot, etc, we are removing a person’s humanity and turning them into a thing that is vile in some way. Then if we break that vile thing then it doesn’t much matter. Once we calm down, it matters but not at the time because we have turned a human being into a nasty thing.
Another problem occurs when we anger ourselves, we shift our goals. In other words, we may engage in a conversation with someone so we have the goal of talking to someone. Then they make a comment to which we react. In the moment of that reaction (based on the thoughts in our head) what we want to happen changes. The goal of having a conversation may change into “being heard”, “getting point across”. Sometimes it could be “hurt the other person” or “win the argument.”
Julia called her partner Emily “a lying cheating #$%^#” and then she proceeded to identify every negative thing about her and anything that Emily had said or done in the seven years of their relationship. She said she was scared when she couldn’t reach Emily and thought that something bad had happened.
At that time she was only concerned but when she found out that her partner had drank too much and crashed at a friend’s house, her concern changed to “hurt her like she hurt me.” Then by using a series of dehumanizing labels she went about destroying Emily as much as she could. It worked. She met her anger goal. And the consequence was that she was living alone. But she failed at meeting her larger goal of stop being angry and live happily with her partner.
Blame
Related to objectifying is blaming. When we are angry in the moment we may see the problem as 100% the other person(s). Rare is it that a situation involving two imperfect human beings is 100% the fault of one of the two. Sometimes it can be pretty lopsided but rare to be the complete fault of one. A partner may cheat and that is 100% the decision of the partner, but our reactions are our own.
When we believe strongly that we have been wronged then we feel justified in our objectification and mistreatment of the other person. Then we often should all over the situation as well. Julia blamed her partner for her anger and felt justified calling her all the ugly things that she did which is objectification. She believed that she had been wronged by Emily staying out and not calling her. Julia kept saying, “She should have called. She shouldn’t have drank and stayed the night. She did all of this.”
Is it true that Emily spent the night out, drank heavily and then passed out at a friend’s house? Yes, these are facts. She didn’t in fact call or text Julia all throughout the night. Julia stayed up having thoughts about the safety of Emily (worrying), called repeatedly and even called local hospitals. She didn’t have the phone numbers of Emily’s friends. Emily had told Julia what she was planning beforehand, where she was going and even warned her that she hadn’t seen one of these friends since college days and was likely to get really drunk. Her plan was to get a ride home but that didn’t happen.
They had been having difficulties throughout the relationship. Emily was very independent, often traveled with her job and shut down when upset. Julia was insecure, wanted constant reassurance from her partner, was fearful of being alone and when upset she was quick to anger. When we look at them subjectively there are many issues that they had individually and in the ways that they related. In other words, enough blame to go around.
Blame and “fixing the wrong thing”
Another problem when we blame others is then we try to fix the wrong thing. This comes directly from my teacher, Dr. Aldo Pucci. Let’s say you go out to start your car and when you turn the key, nothing happens? Then you think, “Oh my tires are low in air.” You add air to the tires and happily get back into the car thinking you fixed the problem. But then still nothing happens. Now you think, “I bet I need more air.” That won’t get the car started either because the driver was busy trying to fix the wrong thing.
In human nature, when we blame others for our upset, we try to go about “fixing” the other person. This can sound like, “if he would pay attention to me,” “if she could tell when I was upset,” “he is supposed to just know why I’m upset”, “if she would give me more sex”, “if he would just answer my texts or calls right away.,” or “they know what I need, why should I have to tell them?”
Now the authors of these statements might not see the problem here. The problem here is that they are busy trying to fix the other person and we cannot ever “fix” another person. We only have control of ourselves. Some of those statements require the partner to become a mind reader and again that isn’t a skill humans have.
Some of the statements are want statements in the form of “I will be satisfied if my partner would only do ____”. Problem is again we are putting air in the tires. Our happiness is of our own making in our own head. Others can influence that but are not responsible for our happiness and vice versa. More sex or quicker response times on texts isn’t the problem, but our thoughts that we need those things.
Keeping Track and Counting Straws
The expression, “the final straw” came from an early 19th century idiom about how one more straw breaks a camel’s (or horse’s) back from overloading the animal a bit much. When we count the number of times someone has “wronged us” we are making this mental mistake. It is related to blame.
To make this mistake, we count the number of times and focus on all the wrongs that we assign (blame) someone else of doing. We can tally a bunch of small offenses in order to make one big problem. It could be things like, she didn’t take out the trash, then forgot milk at the grocery store, spilled coffee on my pants before work. Then thinking that these are all related, directed at us and then blowing up over the final straw. That final straw is very often a little thing and the blow up is usually out of proportion for the event.
The reason is that the one doing the blowing up has counted all the little things and connected them with some negative meaning. In other words we personalize these offenses. It can sound like, “she does these things just to get me angry,” or “they do all of these things to get under my skin.” We count the small offenses and then think that these offenses are directed at us.
Counting straws is very much related to keeping track. The difference is that we don’t assign a negative message about how it is directed at us. But this is more about noticing all the negative things (straws), counting them and then upsetting ourselves over all those straws.
For example, let’s say Nancy woke after a long night of tossing and turning, steps on a kids toy on her way to the bathroom, then spills the mouthwash, then the milk while making her coffee, dropped her keys, bent over to get them and spilled more coffee and then she yells “I’ve had enough!” Then throws her bag and the rest of her coffee at the front door.
She sees only all the negative stuff that happened to her that morning. then she ignores how her oldest daughter helped her clean up the toys and the milk, made breakfast for her and helped her make the kid’s lunches which is all the “good stuff” she ignored while she was counting all the “bad stuff” on the count down so to speak. We can count straws in a short time or over a longer time. But the ingredients so to speak include counting the negative while ignoring anything else or focusing only on those bad things and then reach some arbitrary limit. Once we reach the limit we get angry.
The solution is in the definition. For starters recognizing that we are counting or tracking offenses or the “bad things” that are happening and then remind ourselves that each event is just that one experience. Then realizing that each event isn’t related. In the
Confusing Need with Want
Imagine for a moment that you are in a car that is sinking in water and you can’t get out. Are you panicky? Why? We know that we need air to survive so the fight system fully engages. Imagine now that the reason you can’t get out of that sinking car is someone holding you down. Most often when we believe that someone is denying us those things we need (air, water, food) then that is most often a fight response.
This is the basic drives that keep the human alive to meet our basic survival needs. When we say someone “needs to do ____” and then are panicky our brain is equating the thing that we think we need with air and our survival. If we believe that someone is between us and survival that becomes anger whether they are threatening to us or preventing escape from danger.
Road rage is one of those need vs want problems. A driver in one car cuts off a driver in another car and the second driver becomes so angry that he forces the car off the road or shoots at the other car. The angry driver sees that the careless driver was trying to take his life in some way and he needs to show that careless driver something. Unfortunately the risk to the angry driver is greater from his irrational need statement and the car chase and subsequent shooting at the car then the careless driver’s mistake.
Julia thought that her partner must never cheat (as it would be like stealing the air that she breathes). She was so afraid of that happening that she often would text Emily throughout the day and when Emily wouldn’t respond Julia would often get angry and make comments like “What are you texting your other girlfriend?” Emily often shut down and wouldn’t respond. That would enrage Julia even more.
Notes on needs: Not every need statement is bad so to speak. Conditional needs are things that we need in order to do something. For example, “I need English 101 before I can take English 102.” Or “I need milk to be able to make that recipe.” The big test is to ask if when you use need is there a strong emotional response. If so, then it is likely a problem of thinking that you need something that is life sustaining. If not, more likely it is a conditional need statement.
What to do about the need statement problem. It is so simple! Switch “need” with “want”. Change from I need ___ like I need air to I want ____ and will only be disappointed if I don’t get it.
Instead of “I need my partner to respond immediately,” use “I want my partner to respond immediately.” It isn’t the end of you in a want statement where a need statement suggests that without _____ you die. Our brain evaluates things in life or death so when we think we need something like air, we are going to feel as though we are dying. When we think we only want something, we may be disappointed if we don’t get it. Then practice wanting vs needing and do it over and over.
Another aspect is to look at that thing we thought we needed and ask ourselves why is that so important to us? We may find that we have some work to do. Another and somewhat snarky question is to ask if we don’t get _____ will we die? Has anyone ever died from lack of respect for example? Nope, it isn’t pleasant if we value respect (however we define that word) and don’t get it, but we won’t fall over died without it. Also ask in the pursuit of what you thought you needed, did you put yourself at risk? Think of the road rage situation.
A dear friend came home to find his apartment being broken into. The guys jumped in their car and fled. Because my friend held an irrational need belief, he jumped in his truck and chased after the would be burglars through a residential area. Was he in more danger from the need statement or the burglars? What if kids had been playing in the streets or someone walking or pets? Or what if the would be burglars stopped and confronted my 60 year old friend.
Confusing Choosing To with Having To
As a therapist I have seen this with some new clients. Some clients are compelled to go to therapy by the courts, child protective services or family. Then when the client meets with me, they have a chip on their shoulder as they think that they are being forced to be there.
When we believe that our choice has been removed and we are forced against our will, we are generally going to be pretty angry. The problem is that rarely is that the case. A judge tells someone accused of a crime that he has a choice – therapy or jail. The judge isn’t dragging the accused into the therapist office, holding them in a chair at gun point and staying there for the session which is being forced against their will. Instead the judge gives the accused a choice. Now the accused may not like either option, but that doesn’t make any less a choice and he is free to make that choice.
I often tell these court mandated clients that they have made “the wise decision” to come to therapy. Jail doesn’t seem like a very hospitable place and therapy is an opportunity to learn and meet their goals for therapy. When they realize that indeed they made a choice, most people let go of the anger of thinking that they are being forced into something.
Other times that confusing forced to with choosing to is in caring for an ailing and aging parent. If a client has been abused in childhood by a parent who then requires care and the client does so but resents the parent is another example of this. There is no law or penalty of breaking a law for not caring for an ailing parent. The client may say that they “should” care for them which is an arbitrary command for some spoken or unspoken social rule but it is by no means a real law with real consequences.
When caring for older parents, many clients may end up providing terrible care because of the resentment. In those cases nursing homes may be a far better option. Or sometimes the ailing parent has health concerns that we may not have the skills for or time if we work, have children at home and little time. When we consider the parent and our situation we will make a healthy choice that is far more useful than following some social “rule” that doesn’t exist. Then if we make the decision to care for the parent, it was our CHOICE and we were not forced so no reason for a chip or poor treatment.
Catastrophizing
Catastrophizing can be a stand alone mental mistake or a tack on to other mental mistakes. Human beings can be very creative in the way that we upset ourselves. Here we adversely underestimate our ability to deal with a situation. “It was so terrible that I we broke up.” Words like terrible, horrible, awful, miserable, devastated and end of me are all catastrophizing language. It leads to anxiety and anger depending how these words are used.
| “It was so terrible that I we broke up. He knows that I would be devastated.” | Leads to anxiety as the speaker doubts that they will recover. |
| “It was so terrible that I we broke up. She destroyed the relationship and now I’m devastated.” | Leads to anger(and anxiety likely) as the speaker doubts that they can recover and are blaming the ex-partner for their misery |
Catastrophizing as an add on is like the last sentence in the example above. We can add it to most of the mental mistakes:
| The whole family is miserable now that we are forced to care for my dad. | Adding on Choosing to vs Forced to |
| She knows that I need constant assurance or I’m just devastated | Adding on to Need vs Want |
| My sister shouldn’t ask that of me. She knows how horrible that is for me to deal with. | Adding on to Should |
| She ruined my life. She’s the idiot, so I don’t know why I have to go to anger management and miss work. | Adding on to Objectification |
| Now that I have to miss work because of her calling the cops on me, likely she will also have me thrown in jail for child support. It just awful. | Adding onto to Blame |
When we realize that it certainly isn’t the end of the world because of some uncomfortable situation we are more likely to be able to get through it. If we continue to catastrophize, we feel far worse and are less likely to do those things to get through the tough time. Then later look back and say that we were right about how awful it was. Was it really that bad or did our mindset and subsequent actions make the challenging situation far worse?
| We are choosing to care for my father and I know it is going to take sacrifice and adjustment. We may choose something different down the road. |
| Believing that I need reassurance has led to problems in my relationships. I want to change that and as I do I know I can deal with the discomfort. |
| I know now that I won’t die from my sister speaking to me as she has for over 30 years. I have decided to limit contact and will be fine. I can tolerate the discomfort. |
| My life isn’t ruined because of the consequences of my anger. If I took a picture of her, it wouldn’t show an idiot. My actions broke the law and it stinks but I can deal with the fall out over my actions. |
| I cannot predict the future and if I act better in the future with her, she is less likely to react. I do have the ability to deal with life’s crap and if I miss work to attend the court ordered classes it is better than jail. And if I don’t act out then there is no chance of jail in the future. |
Self Righteous Indignation
If there is a term to describe the modern social media human reactions it is self righteous indignation. For content to go viral it’s the strong emotional response that sells so to speak. Although both strongly positive and negative emotional content sells, the faster to spread and go viral is the negative and in particular outrage.
So what is self righteous indignation and why can social media companies manipulate us using it?
Self Righteous indignation is that anger to sparks us to act. We see something that we deem injustice and then we get so angry that we act. Not every outrageous event is going to get every person to act because the injustice has to be something that concerns us.
If you are very concerned about the environment and find out that a company has applied for permits to do fracking in your area and you really dislike fracking then you may be outraged. That outrage then if strong enough may cause you to act and go on social media, create a post to connect to other like minded people in your area. Then you may then organize a social media blitz on the company or the government officials that are going to rule on the permit request. Your organization may then organize a march to the commission meeting for example.
That is self righteous indignation doing you a service. You saw an injustice that was meaningful and then acted on making a change. There isn’t anything wrong with this. Without enough emotional charge so to speak we aren’t likely to act and many injustices are allowed to continue.
When this outrage can be hurtful is when we use it to attack and to spark outrage to get us to click. In other words, social media sells outrage to get us to click and engage. One day at lunch I was doom scrolling through Facebook and up popped a photo of a duck missing half it’s feathers and headline that my feather pillow is maiming geese. I immediately stopped scrolling and clicked on the photo before my rational mind screamed “stop!” A quick search determined that the majority of feathers for bedding comes from the meat industry. Yes, there are some places such as China that engages in such practices of plucking feathers from living geese, but they are very low in comparison. The informative article explained that I could avoid that by avoiding purchasing products that engage in that practice. It does happen, yes, but no where near the numbers that the Facebook post was suggesting. But as far as Facebook was concerned, I clicked. Sell made.
Tribalism and Self Righteous Indignation
Our caveman ancestors tended to congregate in social groups primarily family groups. There was safety in numbers and often conflict with neighboring tribes over resources was the norm not the exception. This created an “in” and “out” group. We protect members of our in group and we war against those in the out group.
In the modern world, we would like to think that we are far more evolved and that we can accept larger or more global groups and we can, but not all of us humans do. Take for an example sporting events in high schools. The schools engage in competitive events this school vs that school. We have pep rallies to get everyone pepped up for the game and encourage strong emotions to “beat them.” It is particularly intense if it is our “rival” school.
This team spirit isn’t “bad” but demonstrates how we often create these in and out groups. When it is a problem is when we divide and then vilify the groups. Advertisers send ads based on who is most likely to engage with them. We know that eliciting emotion is what gets people to click and engage with the material. If the material is intended to elicit anger especially of the self righteous category, then we are more likely to engage and share. When we share we spread information for free for the advertiser.
Self righteous indignation can also create an us vs them with our loved ones. When working with couples, I strongly discourage talking to family and friends about the issues in the relationship. The problem is that then there can end up “sides” and this is especially true in situations in which blame is involved and if there is a clear “fault” that can be seen. I see this a lot in the case of a cheating souse or a partner with substance use issues. Now there is a clear villain so to speak. Splitting up is their choice but they may have decided to work through the issues but with the sides formed up it is hard to then reverse course. Or if the righteous indignation continues the couple will have other issues such as loss of mutual friends, parenting conflicts or battling on after the relationship ended.
Right to be angry
Some people who have come into therapy have said that they have a right to be angry and other people just have to deal with it. If you live in USA, we have a Bill of Rights and those are the rights as guaranteed by our country and that if infringed upon we have recourse. Basically we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We don’t have a guaranteed right to be angry.
A Right vs Spectrum of Emotions
Every human being with a healthy normal brain is capable of feeling the entire spectrum of human emotions including anger and those emotions are caused by the thoughts that we have to generate the emotions. If like Julia, you thought, “that #$^#^&** girlfriend of mine how dare she treat me like that,” then you are going to feel anger. That is only the indication that your brain is healthy as you had that thought and then felt anger.
Now the problem is in the actions that we take when experiencing an emotion. If Julia had then beat up her girlfriend or destroyed her property then Emily has the right as guaranteed by laws in this country to press charges against Julia. Which was actually what happened that prompted Julia to seek therapy for her anger after Julia had showed up at Emily’s work and “made a scene” out of anger.
We don’t have the “right” to have anger. We have the capacity to experience anger. When we believe that we have the right to being angry we could act as though we also have the right to act on that anger. We don’t. Most places have laws about human behavior when it comes to violating the rights of others.
The solution is to see the distinction. We have the ability as humans with healthy brains to feel the entire spectrum of emotions. The right to experience something is not guaranteed. In this country we have the right to pursue happiness but even then there are laws around exactly what that can’t look like because our rights tend to end if we violate the rights of another.
Final Thoughts
For Julia, she ended the relationship and felt justified in doing so. She didn’t mind the fall out so to speak with the loss of her girlfriend, at least in the beginning. Once the anger wore off Julia realized that she missed Emily. She also missed the friends and family that Emily had brought to the relationship and exited with her. She missed the future plans that they had and because of her actions and reactions those plans weren’t going to be realized. Good news is that she did some amazing work around her anger thoughts. As a result in her future relationships she has a far better chance and at least her anger won’t be a problem.
As my teacher Dr. Aldo Pucci so wisely pointed out, “Anger is like urinating in your pants. Everyone can see it but you’re the one the feels it.”
Want to Learn More?
If you would like to learn more, please look at other articles or my website at Rational Lifestyle Consulting.
Would you like to learn more about trauma and how it affects us? Click here for the free webinar and yes, it is free.
If you would like more in-depth help, please check out my mini workshop HERE and a full therapy course on freeing yourself from anger HERE. To see the entire course listings, please click HERE.
